We'll continue having mass shootings as long as there's no accountability or responsibility involved in gun ownership. It's not only a tragedy that we are getting too used to living with, it is an offense and an affront to any gun owner who is responsible and accountable.

At least this parent is pushing forward. But there are only a couple of things now that will stop this stuff from happening.

1. Campaign finance reform. When Congress can't be bought, laws regarding guns will change because they will not have a financial constituency to which to be indebted and to which they owe favors. 2. A mass shooting at a school or other venue in the middle of an extremist Congressman's district, resulting in his loss of enough votes to be replaced. By a Democrat. 3. A mass shooting at a school where a high profile contributor or official of the NRA or one of its supporting corporations has children enrolled, or where family members were present.

Any father who has had a child murdered has sadly earned the right to express himself.

That said:

1. The murderer passed two background checks on his gun purchases.2. He had two simple pistols, not "assault" weapons.3. Half of his victims were killed with a knife.4. The real issue here is mental illness, not gun control.5. CA already has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation.

I am moderate on gun control laws but I don't know what new laws would have prevented these murders. Perhaps you can suggest some. When Sandy says new laws will "stop this stuff from happening" presumably as Democrats are elected, then he should explain how.

He was reported on a registry that would have showed the report his parents made to the Santa Barbara police regarding his mental condition and their concern about his instability. That would have flagged on the background check, and delayed the sale of the pistols.

54 senators voted in favor of that bill, but under unconstitutional rules, a majority is not enough. So America will continue to allow its children and young people to be subject to mass murder. There were armed security guards and police within yards of where this guy went crazy, and no one could stop it. Likewise, the most recent Fort Hood shooting took place in an area where people were loaded with weapons, couldn't stop it. No law or rule will be perfect, but apparently most other progressive Democracies in the world have succeeded in preventing mass shootings, where the US has failed miserably. Maybe it would be a good idea to look into what Switzerland, with the world's highest gun ownership, does to prevent mass shootings. It's called "responsible gun ownership."

I would like hear our friends' advice on how we may put a stop to "knife violence". Would this even be a post if the guy had only killed three people with a knife? Or if he had killed all 6 people with a knife? Maybe....but you wouldn't have politicians lining up to ban knives or talk about "ending knife violence".

California has about every so-called "common-sense" regulation that some wish to impose on a national scale. Reduced magazine capacity. Waiting periods. Ban on so-called "assault" weapons. Even has an "approved handgun list" whereby manufacturers must get their handgun approved for sale in the state.

The guy had forty-one 10-round magazines from one bit I read. Magazine capacity didn't come into play from anything I read, but if it had, would it have really mattered if he had 400+ rounds in 10-round magazines instead of in twenty-five or so 15-round magazines? No, but like many leftists arguments, silly screaming about "high capacity magazines" sounds reasonable, and since people want someone to "do something", such idiocy gets put into law even if it is completely detached from reality and utterly useless.

There are no solutions, only trade-offs. For every person you "save" by banning handguns (and please don't try to tell me that isn't the ultimate goal), you kill another because a man or woman didn't have a gun, or subject a host of others to assault or theft because they didn't have a means to neutralize what is often a larger, more physically intimidating threat.

One could also say gun control is an example of visible vs invisible costs, a concept usually applied to economics. The visible costs are stories such as this wacko who killed 6 people and garnered national news and message board discussions and commentaries probably even in other countries. The invisible costs are the linked stories above that go largely unnoticed where a much larger number of folks are not subjected to violence - whether by gun or any other instrument - each day because they did remove the threat with a gun either by its appearance or putting it to use. But rarely does NOT being the victim of a crime get anything more than local news attention and maybe a story on a web site here and there.

Even as the gun-control debate rises again in the U.S. in the aftermath of the horrific school shooting in Newtown, Conn., the gun-loving Swiss are not about to lay down their arms. Guns are ubiquitous in this neutral nation, with sharpshooting considered a fun and wholesome recreational activity for people of all ages.***Because of this general acceptance and even pride in gun ownership, nobody bats an eye at the sight of a civilian riding a bus, bike or motorcycle to the shooting range, with a rifle slung across the shoulder.***Yet, despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. By comparison, the U.S rate in the same year was about 5 firearm killings per 100,000 people, according to a 2011 U.N. report.

So gun ownership in Switzerland is widespread. They even possess "assault weapons" with "high capacity" magazines designed to "fire from the hip" ( ) (until just recently, the folks keep these full-auto-capable firearms IN THEIR HOMES). Yet they have had only 1 mass shooting in recent history. They do not allow concealed carry, but concealed carry has never made the U.S. into the "wild, wild west" with "shootouts in the streets" like the Brady Bunch and other alarmists claimed it would when concealed carry starting to take hold in the states. Yet the violent-crime rate is low in Switzerland and violent crime in the U.S. has decreased since 1990 (nice charts!) even as concealed carry permits, the popularity of firearms with 15+ capacity magazines, and rifle clones of the AR15 have increased.

in the French-speaking village of Daillon, 100km (62 miles) from Geneva, a psychologically disturbed man opened fire on locals, killing three people and wounding two others. Police had already confiscated weapons from the gunman in 2005, after he had been placed in psychiatric care.

magazine capacity restrictions, "assault rifle" bans and other such restrictions are almost totally symbolic

folks intent on doing violence can find a way even if the government takes their guns away

the culture/attitude of the people is the root issue with which has to be addressed

gun restrictions are treatments of the symptom, not moving toward a cure

if guns are just a symptom, then what are the sources of the cultural rot?

what can change the cultural rot?

on a spiritual note, cultural rot leading to more gun violence means in part that the Church and Christians have lost their voice or become ineffective

Since it figures into this current event because half the dead died by a "knifeman" (before he became a "gunman"), I bring you a "blast from the past" from across the pond from 2005 in the U.K. Since the anti-gunners are at it again, will they show similar concern for the 3 dead from a knife:

Accident and emergency doctors today call for the banning of long, sharp kitchen knives, arguing they account for at least half of all stabbings. They say such knives slice through clothing and penetrate vital organs.

"Many assaults are impulsive, often triggered by alcohol or misuse of other drugs, and the long, pointed kitchen knife is an easily accessible, potentially lethal weapon, particularly in the domestic setting," say the doctors from the West Middlesex university hospital, London, in the British Medical Journal.

Knives "of less than 5cm [2ins] in length" or with blunt, round ends would meet culinary needs and be far less likely to result in fatalities.

Please take note of doctors assumming the role of what one "needs" for culinary activities. This would be the same thought pattern that Keith exibited in another thread where he proclaimed that no one "needed an semiautomatic pistol". No "DATA" or charts are supplied to support such a claim.

Aren't progressives a grand lot? They seem to possess a great deal of knowledge about what other people need. Based, of course, on their own ignorance.

Time Magazine wrote:One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons — and also why the Swiss mentality can’t be transposed to the current American reality — is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation. Kids as young as 12 belong to gun groups in their local communities, where they learn sharpshooting. The Swiss Shooting Sports Association runs about 3,000 clubs and has 150,000 members, including a youth section. Many members keep their guns and ammunition at home, while others choose to leave them at the club. And yet, despite such easy access to pistols and rifles, “no members have ever used their guns for criminal purposes,” says Max Flueckiger, the association’s spokesperson.

“Social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime,” says Peter Squires, professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Brighton in Great Britain, who has studied gun violence in different countries and concluded that a “culture of support” rather than focus on individualism, can deter mass killings.

Makes my point.

In Switzerland, gun ownership is related to the military. Every Swiss male is drafted into the Army at 18, and most women join as well. You can't buy a gun or carry in Switzerland unless you have been 1) trained by a gun club or 2) trained for the military, and 3) your guns are registered with the government. That's exactly why the instances of shooting are low. Two, the article doesn't really touch on the fact that non-citizen residents of Switzerland are not allowed to own or have firearms in their possession. The regulation of ownership is very strict, and the accountability is very high, unlike the US. Obviously, having these requirements in place prevents mass shootings, which was exactly the point I was making.

I would be open to additional gun control measures involving mental health patients and issues but I'm not sure what is workable and what would be helpful as opposed to what would make the gun control lobby feel good. California had laws but if what I read was right, there was no check on gun purchase unless an individual had been admitted as a MH patient.

No, it really doesn't. Being trained by a gun club or the military or having a registered weapon doesn't do squat to prevent a wacko from being set off and going on a shooting rampage. The guy in California used registered guns. He possessed magazines that were regulated to only have 10 rounds as specified by California law. This guy waited out the waiting-period in CA, so he would have been patient enough to go through a training course. California has some of the toughest gun control laws in this country, yet this incident happened. Taking away his gun wasn't going to do anything. Somebody like that would have just found an alternative avenue to carry out his evil deeds.

William Thornton wrote:I would be open to additional gun control measures involving mental health patients and issues but I'm not sure what is workable and what would be helpful as opposed to what would make the gun control lobby feel good. California had laws but if what I read was right, there was no check on gun purchase unless an individual had been admitted as a MH patient.

I would too but it is my understanding that only about 5% of murders are mental health related but 67.7% of all murders in the US in 2011 involved a gun. I think we do need to work on the mental health issues but that doesn't solve the whole problem.

Not all mass shootings are preventable in a culture where everyone can own a gun. But most other developed countries have a much better success rate with this than the US does. I think the Swiss are probably on to something with their training course requirement. That shouldn't upset the NRA, since I think they advocate for that sort of thing among their membership. It shouldn't bother the manufacturers, or sellers either because it would be another money making angle for them. It might be difficult for someone who is suffering from mental problems to sustain the patience and discipline necessary to complete a rigorous gun ownership class.